svn-agent MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., svn_add vs svn_commit). However, svn_move and svn_rename are aliases for the same operation, causing redundancy. Additionally, eol_check and eol_fix_verified overlap in scope, but descriptions clarify their difference.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority of tools follow a consistent svn_{verb} pattern. However, two EOL-related tools use an eol_ prefix instead of svn_eol_, and svn_self_check does not follow the verb pattern. This inconsistency may confuse an agent.
Tool Count5/5
23 tools is an appropriate number for a Subversion client agent. It covers a wide range of operations without being overwhelming or too sparse. Each tool seems necessary for distinct SVN tasks.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers many core SVN operations, but notable gaps exist: svn_delete, svn_merge, svn_switch, and svn_blame are missing. For a comprehensive SVN workflow, these operations are important. The precommit check and EOL handling are nice additions, but the gaps reduce completeness.
Average 2.9/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 27 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 8, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The term 'Guarded' hints at a safety feature, but it is not explained. The presence of the 'riskAck' parameter is not mentioned, and the description does not clarify what happens if it is false or other constraints. The description fails to provide sufficient transparency about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at 7 words, but it sacrifices essential details. While it is front-loaded with the key action 'propset', the brevity leads to ambiguity. Every sentence should add value, and here the single sentence is too minimal to be fully effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the 'guarded' concept, the required 'riskAck' field, or what the tool returns. The description is inadequate for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 5 parameters with only 40% description coverage (cwd and paths have descriptions). The tool description adds no information about any parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like 'riskAck' remain completely unexplained, making it difficult for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it's an svn propset for a working copy, which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, the term 'Guarded' is vague and does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like svn_propset_eol_style. The description lacks specificity about what makes this tool different from other propset-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only mentions 'explicit paths' as a constraint, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like svn_propset_eol_style. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other tools would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description has the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions using a temporary file for the message, which is a minor behavioral hint. However, it does not state that the command modifies the repository, requires network access, or whether it is destructive. The return value or side effects are not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, at only one sentence. While there is no wasted text, it lacks essential details, making it under-described. It is not verbose, but conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters (three required without schema descriptions) and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, what the parameters represent, or what outcome to expect. This is a significant gap for an AI agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only 25% description coverage (only 'cwd' has a description). The description adds minimal value: it implies 'message' is used via a temp file, but it does not explain the meaning of 'src' or 'url'. For a required parameter that is undocumented in the schema, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Run svn import', which identifies the operation as the SVN import command. However, it does not explain what import does (e.g., importing a local directory into a repository). For users unfamiliar with SVN, the purpose is vague. Among siblings, it is distinguishable by name, but the description lacks a clear, self-contained purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use svn_import versus alternative tools like svn_add or svn_commit. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., source directory, remote URL) or typical usage scenarios. This leaves the AI agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool is non-destructive ('without destructive cleanup flags'), but fails to describe what the tool actually does, such as removing locks or cleaning up unfinished operations, whether it modifies files, or requires network access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. While it is structured and front-loaded, it could be slightly expanded to include more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, prerequisites (like being inside an SVN working copy), or how the tool interacts with the working copy. The context is incomplete for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 50% description coverage (only 'cwd' is described). The description adds no information about parameters, so it does not compensate for the missing schema description of 'path'. An agent would not understand what 'path' signifies without relying on SVN knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it runs 'svn cleanup' without destructive flags, which is clear but vague. It doesn't elaborate on what the svn cleanup command does (e.g., removing working copy locks), and while it hints at being non-destructive, it doesn't fully distinguish from sibling tools like svn_revert or svn_resolved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like svn_revert, svn_update, and svn_resolved exist, but the description gives no context about appropriate scenarios (e.g., after an interrupted SVN operation) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention that svn_export creates a clean copy without .svn directories, or that it can operate on URLs or working copies. The only statement is a reiteration of the command name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at five words, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded in the sense of being short, but it fails to earn its place by providing value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 4-parameter input with low schema coverage, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is far from complete. It does not help an agent understand how to invoke the tool correctly or what to expect from the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only cwd has a description). The description does not explain src, dest, or revision parameters. Critical information about what these parameters represent (e.g., source path/URL, destination path) is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run explicit svn export' clearly identifies the verb (export) and resource (svn). It distinguishes from siblings like svn_checkout or svn_add due to the specific SVN command naming. However, it assumes familiarity with 'svn export' and does not elaborate on the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many svn_* commands, but the description gives no context for choosing svn_export over, e.g., svn_checkout or svn_import.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The term 'guarded' is vague – does it mean validation, rollback, or something else? There is no disclosure about handling conflicts, whether the source is deleted, or what constitutes a 'guard'. The parent directory creation is mentioned but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It omits critical details like parameter behavior, error states, and examples. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, low schema coverage, and missing usage guidelines, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. The tool has 3 parameters with 2 required, but the description only hints at the move behavior without covering the parameters or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33%, with only 'cwd' having a description. 'src' and 'dest' lack descriptions. The description adds that parent directories are created for the destination, which provides some meaning, but the missing descriptions for src and dest make it difficult to understand required formats (e.g., should they be absolute or relative? Are they file paths or URLs?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Guarded working-copy svn move with parent directory creation' clearly indicates it performs an SVN move with extra safety and parent directory creation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like svn_rename or svn_copy, which could be similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like svn_rename, svn_copy, or svn_revert. The description implies a guarded move but lacks context on prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions conversion and verification but does not explain that the tool modifies the file (destructive action), how inference from svn:eol-style works, what happens on failure, or the implications of the 'ignored-EOL diff' verification step. This leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details about parameters and behavior. It is not inefficiently verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity, earning a middle score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involves SVN, EOL conversion, verification), no output schema, and minimal annotation support, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, error handling, verification semantics, or constraints like file size (allowLarge), making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'cwd' described). The tool description adds no parameter-level details; it does not mention path, dryRun, target, removeBom, or allowLarge. For a tool with 6 parameters and low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: convert a file's EOL style using unix2dos/dos2unix, inferred from svn:eol-style, then verify the diff. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like eol_check (check only) and svn_propset_eol_style (set property, not convert file).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., svn:eol-style must be set), when verification is needed, or when other tools like eol_check or svn_propset_eol_style are more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. The phrase 'return structured log entries' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical details about usage, parameters, and effects. It is too minimal to be fully useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., working copy requirement).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%, with cwd and paths documented but limit and verbose lacking descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs 'svn log' and returns structured log entries, which is specific to the svn_log command. It distinguishes from sibling tools like svn_add, svn_commit, etc., all of which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use svn_log versus other svn tools like svn_info or svn_status. The description does not mention circumstances or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description must carry burden. Discloses 'guarded' and parent directory creation, but 'guarded' is vague. Does not mention destructive nature, permissions, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very short (12 words), which aids quick reading, but at the expense of necessary detail. Could be restructured to include more information without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. Missing return values, prerequisites, error handling, and elaboration on the 'guarded' behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only cwd described). Description adds minimal info: implies src and dest are source/destination paths, but no format or constraints. Fails to compensate for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States it's an alias for svn move/rename with parent directory creation, clearly indicating action and resource. Distinguishes from svn_move by noting it's 'guarded', but could be more explicit about differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like svn_move. No when-not-to-use or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description uses 'Guarded' but does not explain what protection it provides or behavioral traits like conflict resolution or permissions needed. Does not disclose if destructive or read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short with one sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. Not front-loaded with useful info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 22 sibling tools and no output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand when to use it and what results to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description does not explain any parameters. Schema has 67% coverage; updateAll has no description. Description fails to add meaning, especially for updateAll.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'svn update' and resource (working copy), with specific flag '--accept postpone'. Differentiates from siblings like svn_add, svn_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like svn_cleanup or svn_resolved. Implies use for updates with conflict handling, but no explicit directions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions parent directory creation, which is a key behavior, but does not disclose other important traits like whether existing files are overwritten, error handling, or required permissions. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, capturing the core purpose in a single phrase. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity on important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an svn copy operation and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and the meaning of 'guarded'. More context is needed for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only cwd has a description). The description adds no information about src or dest parameters, leaving their semantics ambiguous. It does not compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it's an 'svn copy' operation on the working copy with parent directory creation. The verb and resource are clear (copy within working copy), but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like svn_move or svn_export, though the mention of 'working-copy' helps narrow scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as svn_move or svn_add. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'read-only' but does not disclose what happens if checks fail, how results are aggregated, or any side effects (e.g., no destructive actions). The list of components is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key concept 'composite read-only precommit check'. It efficiently lists components, though could benefit from more structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a composite tool and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lists components but does not explain what each check does, how results are returned, or what warnings look like. Incomplete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters. Schema coverage is 67% (cwd and paths have descriptions, lineLimit has constraints but no description). The description adds no value beyond the schema for understanding parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a composite read-only precommit check and lists the components (status, diff, EOL check, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that only perform one of these tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this composite tool versus running individual sibling tools (e.g., svn_status, eol_check, svn_diff). The description lacks explicit usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'guarded' and automatic parent directory addition, but does not explain what 'guarded' entails, error handling, or side effects like conflict detection. Insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no redundant words. Maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of svn add (side effects, error scenarios) and lack of output schema, the description is too brief. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters described). The description adds context to paths (auto-adds parent directories) and allowRecursive (explicit recursion), but does not fully compensate for the undocumented allowRecursive parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an 'svn add' operation with specific behaviors (adding parent directories, explicitly recursive). It distinguishes it from other svn tools, though not explicitly from its siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., svn_commit, svn_revert). The term 'guarded' hints at caution but does not specify conditions or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. 'Guarded' is vague—does not explain the guard mechanism, failure behavior, or whether it is safe. The riskAck parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description, leaving the guard undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence. No wasted words, but may be too brief. The structure efficiently conveys the core action and method.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and 22 siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the guard's conditions. The riskAck parameter is critical for safe use but unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (cwd, paths have descriptions; message, riskAck do not). The description adds 'explicit paths' and 'temp -F message file', providing context for paths and message usage. However, riskAck's purpose is not explained, limiting added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is a 'svn commit' operation, which is specific. The term 'guarded' hints at safety but is ambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the temp file method, but could be clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Among 22 SVN siblings, it does not differentiate when to use this vs svn_precommit or svn_revert. The agent must infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive, what happens to conflict markers, or any side effects. It only states the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from slightly more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the accept modes, prerequisites (e.g., a conflict must exist), or the outcome of resolution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 33% schema description coverage, the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions 'explicit accept mode' but does not explain the meaning of each accept value or the path and cwd parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'resolve', the resource 'conflicted path', and the key aspect 'explicit accept mode'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like svn_revert which handles different scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like svn_revert or other conflict handling methods. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output (structured changed paths and conflicts) but does not disclose if the command modifies anything, authentication requirements, or performance implications. It implies a read-only operation but does not confirm safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too brief. It does not explain key parameters like hideNoise and includeIgnored, nor does it describe the return format in sufficient detail. The tool's behavior in edge cases (e.g., no changes) is omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%; two parameters (hideNoise, includeIgnored) lack schema descriptions and the tool description adds no further explanation. The description does not augment the schema beyond stating the tool is 'scoped'. Parameter meaning remains unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs 'svn status' and returns structured changed paths and conflicts. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like svn_diff or svn_revert.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of context where it should be avoided. The description is too brief to provide usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details such as behavior when a property does not exist (error vs. empty), whether the operation is recursive, or how multiple paths are handled. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. Given its brevity, it scores high but loses a point for slight under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, edge cases (e.g., missing property), or operational constraints. A more complete description would address these aspects briefly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, simply reiterating that it reads a property. The schema already defines parameter names and constraints (e.g., pattern for 'name', path descriptions). Thus, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Read'), the resource ('working-copy property'), and the scope ('from explicit paths'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings, such as 'svn_propset' which is for writing properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or comparisons to related tools like svn_propset or svn_info. This omission leaves the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'guarded' but does not explain what guards exist (e.g., safety checks, irreversible changes). No info on side effects, permissions, or error states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is concise but could incorporate more details without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites like having a clean working copy. The term 'guarded' is ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (cwd and paths have descriptions; dryRun and allowRecursive have none). The tool description adds no further detail about these parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'svn revert for explicit paths', specifies 'preview or perform', and uses the term 'guarded' to hint at safety checks. It effectively distinguishes from other svn tools by focusing on explicit paths.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Preview or perform' implies a dry-run option, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Alternatives among siblings (e.g., svn_cleanup, svn_diagnose) are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that ignore-EOL is enabled by default for internal diff and that the output returns per-file counts. This adds value beyond the schema, which has no annotations. However, it does not cover all behavioral aspects like output format or authorization.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and adds key behavioral details. Slightly more structure could improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of SVN diff, the description omits important context such as what 'per-file counts' entails, output format (unified?), and handling of errors. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds a default for ignoreEol, but does not explain lineLimit or paths beyond what the schema provides. It partially compensates for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Run scoped svn diff', which clearly identifies the verb (diff) and resource (SVN). 'Scoped' is somewhat vague, but it distinguishes from other svn tools like svn_log or svn_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like svn_log or svn_status. There is no mention of prerequisites or context-specific usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is reported but does not state whether the tool modifies state, requires special permissions, or any other behavioral traits. As a 'check', it likely is read-only, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that efficiently lists the reported items. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with verb 'Report'. Every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a self-check diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description lists the key items reported. It lacks detail on the return format (e.g., boolean, text, structured data), but given the tool's nature, it is mostly sufficient. Could mention if the tool also returns actionable status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the cwd parameter is well-documented in the schema), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters, which is acceptable given the schema coverage. Baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports specific items (MCP release pointer, runtime payload counts, startup probe, packaging script health), giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all standard SVN operations, so an agent can see this is a diagnostic/self-check tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Since siblings include other check tools like eol_check, but the description doesn't explain the context or when to prefer svn_self_check over them. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must carry the burden. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it disclose any side effects, error behavior, or performance characteristics. This is minimally adequate for a simple inspection tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. Every word conveys essential information with no redundancy or fluff. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should ideally hint at the return format or behavior. It does not mention what the inspection yields (e.g., a list of files with properties). Given the simplicity and the existence of sibling tools, this is acceptable but not complete. Scores 3 as adequate but could be better.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (cwd and paths) are already documented. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation. No improvement or degradation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Inspect') and the specific items (EOL kind, BOM, svn:eol-style) for explicit files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eol_fix_verified (fixes EOL) and svn_propset_eol_style (sets property), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eol_fix_verified or svn_propset_eol_style. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where inspection is appropriate. The agent must rely solely on the tool name and purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It adds value by mentioning mixed-revision detection beyond standard 'svn info'. However, it omits details about side effects, permissions, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 10 words, no waste. Front-loaded with action and key feature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool with well-documented schema parameters, but lacks return value description, error conditions, and when mixed-revision detection triggers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs 'svn info' and additionally detects mixed-revision state, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like svn_status or svn_diff by highlighting the mixed-revision detection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., svn_status, svn_log). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', indicating no destructive actions. It lists the diagnostic categories, giving a clear expectation of behavior. It does not mention potential performance impacts or limitations, but the read-only nature and scope are well communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the key information ('Read-only working-copy diagnostics') and then elaborates on scope. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the expected output by listing the diagnostic areas. The tool is moderately complex (multiple diagnostics), but the description covers the main aspects. It could benefit from mentioning the output format or ordering, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'cwd' and 'paths' parameters. Both parameters are already described in the schema, so no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is for 'Read-only working-copy diagnostics' and lists specific diagnostic areas: local status, remote status, HEAD info, and latest log reachability. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings by being a combined diagnostic tool covering multiple aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for diagnostics and notes it is read-only, which suggests when not to use it (modifications). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like svn_status, svn_info, or svn_log, nor does it provide clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses conditional behavior (only for missing/mismatched) but doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Adequate for a simple set operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, precise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; return value not described. For a set operation, basic info on success/error is missing, but given low complexity, it's partially adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (cwd, paths). Description adds meaning that paths must be explicit files and operation is conditional, compensating for missing style description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it sets svn:eol-style for files that are missing or mismatched. It distinguishes from sibling tools like svn_propset (general) and eol_fix_verified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Indicates when to use (files with missing/mismatched eol-style) but no explicit comparison with siblings or when-not to use. Context is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![svn-agent-mcp-v1 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shrishailrana-maker/svn-agent-mcp-v1/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shrishailrana-maker/svn-agent-mcp-v1)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![svn-agent-mcp-v1 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shrishailrana-maker/svn-agent-mcp-v1/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shrishailrana-maker/svn-agent-mcp-v1)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shrishailrana-maker/svn-agent-mcp-v1'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server